From Intention to Implementation of Vertical Green: The Case of Ljubljana
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Sustainability 1594549
From intention to implementation of vertical green: The case for Ljubljana
This is a well written article on an interesting topic for GI implementation however could be improved with a bit more detail on Methods & Materials, Results and Discussion
Abstract- line 21 -should be “as confirmed….”
Introduction- line 47- the “share” of green spaces? Is this the sharing of green spaces?
Methods and Materials
Line 127 Figure 1-feft box what is “Inventarization”? Is this Inventory?
Lines 130-151- What happened with the interview data? How recorded and analyzed?
Lines 166-192- This section would benefit from a diagram illustrating the steps and procedures of the two-part workshops.
Lines 198-199- It would be good to have a rationale of why the area inside the ring road was chosen for the GIS analysis.
Lines 262-278- Since the GI administrative survey was key to this part of the study- it would be good to have the survey instrument as an appendix plus a summarization table of major results by city surveyed.
Results
Lines 288-299- nice summary table!
Line 390- How was this model created? We can see the components in Appendix A but a brief explanation would be useful. Also, I would move Figure 5 of the model from Appendix A to this point in the text.
Discussion
This is very generic, and it is suggested that the authors review their major findings plus generalizability to other cities or just Ljubljana. Other the authors should mention study limitations, and future research needed as well as GI implementation
Author Response
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “ From intention to implementation of vertical green: The case of Ljubljana ” for publication in the Sustainability Journal.
We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper.
We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by both reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript (track changes). Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ Comments and suggestions for authors, first answers for 1st Reviewer followed by answers to 2nd Reviewer. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.
With kind regards,
Authors
OPEN Review 1
- Abstract- line 21 -should be “as confirmed….”
“The general opinion that there is never too much green space in urban areas is confirmed by direct information from the city administration and strategic documents.” Authors wanted to express that this is confirmed within the article.
- Introduction- line 47- the “share” of green spaces? Is this the sharing of green spaces?
Share of green spaces is correct - as ratio or percentage of green space compared to other surfaces (e.g., built)
- Methods and Materials
- Line 127 Figure 1-feft box what is “Inventarization”? Is this Inventory?
Yes, it has been corrected (see Figure 1).
- Lines 130-151- What happened with the interview data? How recorded and analyzed?
Short explanation has been added (143-144)
- Lines 166-192- This section would benefit from a diagram illustrating the steps and procedures of the two-part workshops.
2-part workshop procedure has been added to Figure 1 (see Figure 1).
- Lines 198-199- It would be good to have a rationale of why the area inside the ring road was chosen for the GIS analysis.
Added description in 209-210
- Lines 262-278- Since the GI administrative survey was key to this part of the study- it would be good to have the survey instrument as an appendix plus a summarization table of major results by city surveyed.
Unfortunately, the survey pole consists of 9 pages with complex styles/layout which cannot fit to Appendix; we will try to provide an on-line accessible version if it is possible to be published together with the article. We have added the summary of questions and answers for Ljubljana to Appendix B.
Results
- Lines 288-299- nice summary table! Thank you
- Line 390- How was this model created? We can see the components in Appendix A but a brief explanation would be useful. Also, I would move Figure 5 of the model from Appendix A to this point in the text.
It is described in methodology – 255-269. We moved figure 5 from appendix to line 269
Discussion
This is very generic, and it is suggested that the authors review their major findings plus generalizability to other cities or just Ljubljana. Other the authors should mention study limitations, and future research needed as well as GI implementation
We respect your opinion and have added several specific points to discussion. The discussion was completely restructured and new parts, explaining the results in more detail, added. It can be followed by tracked changes; however, we recommend reading a clean version.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper appears like a very good description of a consultancy project with the city Ljubljana, my main concern is about the main academic contribution of the article and how it is not a good description of the methodology of consultancy work for a VG implementation in the city Ljubljana.
Additional concerns are the following:
- State reasons for choosing the methods used and provide examples of previous research.
- state the reason for choosing semistructured interviews, how did you check the validity of the data and what measures did you take to avoid your bias of the topic.
- explain the purpose of the workshop in the context of the research, it is not clear what data or information you are getting from this.
- state clearly what are the main findings of the work, and how your contribution helps other academics or practitioners.
Author Response
Review Sustainability 1594549
Response to Reviewers
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “ From intention to implementation of vertical green: The case of Ljubljana ” for publication in the Sustainability Journal.
We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to our paper.
We have incorporated most of the suggestions made by both reviewers. Those changes are highlighted within the manuscript (track changes). Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ Comments and suggestions for authors, first answers for 1st Reviewer followed by answers to 2nd Reviewer. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.
With kind regards,
Authors
OPEN Review 2
- State reasons for choosing the methods used and provide examples of previous research.
Short explanation has been added (125-129)
- State the reason for choosing semistructured interviews, how did you check the validity of the data and what measures did you take to avoid your bias of the topic.
Semi-structured interviews were chosen as a method which allows more interaction between the interviewed and the conductor - it allows a debate to evolve in which a professional can reveal more information compared to simple questions/questionnaire form; it also has a better response rate and is more suitable for a limited number of participating persons. We avoided the bias of the topic by providing a professional interviewer to conduct the interviews; he was not a part of the project team and guided the interviews neutrally; also, he assisted in setting the questions - so they would not lead the interviewed persons to certain answers. The validity of the data was checked in comparison to information gained on following workshop and with another questionnaire for 4 groups of stakeholders (municipalities, public, experts and investors) which partially covered same questions but is not a part of this article. Information added (158-162)
- Explain the purpose of the workshop in the context of the research, it is not clear what data or information you are getting from this.
The information gained at the workshop is added in methodology, results and discussion part (lines 179, 339, 487, 509,573). The role of the workshop was manyfold, the information complements with information from GIS analysis and analysis of the legal framework. However, the most important benefit was to gather different departments to sit together and discuss (and to define which persons from the city administration are required for certain case) and co-create exact cases which could turn to future implementation.
- State clearly what are the main findings of the work, and how your contribution helps other academics or practitioners.
We respect your opinion and have added several specific points to discussion. The discussion was completely restructured and new parts, explaining the results in more detail added. It can be followed by tracked changes; however, we recommend reading a clean version.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed most of the concerns.
Please state the specific points to added to the discussion and how your findings help practitioners and the state of the art of the field.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer (2)
The authors are grateful for the careful reading and comments to improve the article; based on additional remark we
- marked the parts in the discussion with most important outcomes of the research;
- we also add one short part on importance of the research for practitioners and experts;
- made some additional minor changes (deleted redundant words).
We think that the results can be an input data for further in detail studies and actual implementation. The benefit for the city and actors has been mentioned in certain parts of the article (results of certain methods in Results section and marked parts in Discussion).
We have tried to address the issues, however if we missed something we can provide additional information or clarify.
Kind regards,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
